Deeper Learning for English Language Learners and Students ... Learning for English...learning,” “critical thinking,” “conceptual understanding,” and “learning how to learn.”

Deeper Learning for English Language Learners and Students

with Disabilities

.

DEEPER LEARNING RESEARCH SERIES | THE IMPLICATIONS OF DEEPER LEARNING FOR ADOLESCENT IMMIGRANTS AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

ii

EDiTORS’ iNTRODUCTiON TO THE DEEPER LEARNiNG RESEARCH SERiES

In 2010, Jobs for the Future—with support from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation—launched the Students at the Center

initiative, an effort to identify, synthesize, and share research findings on effective approaches to teaching and learning at

the high school level.

The initiative began by commissioning a series of white papers on key topics in secondary schooling, such as student

motivation and engagement, cognitive development, classroom assessment, educational technology, and mathematics and

literacy instruction.

Together, these reports—collected in the edited volume Anytime, Anywhere: Student-Centered Learning for Schools and

Teachers, published by Harvard Education Press in 2013—make a compelling case for what we call “student-centered”

practices in the nation’s high schools. Ours is not a prescriptive agenda; we don’t claim that all classrooms must conform to

a particular educational model. But we do argue, and the evidence strongly suggests, that most, if not all, students benefit

when given ample opportunities to:

> Participate in ambitious and rigorous instruction tailored to their individual needs and interests

> Advance to the next level, course, or grade based on demonstrations of their skills and content knowledge

> Learn outside of the school and the typical school day

> Take an active role in defining their own educational pathways

Students at the Center will continue to gather the latest research and synthesize key findings related to student

engagement and agency, competency education, and other critical topics. Also, we have developed—and have made

available at www.studentsatthecenterhub.org—a wealth of free, high-quality tools and resources designed to help educators

implement student-centered practices in their classrooms, schools, and districts.

Further, and thanks to the generous support of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Students at the Center has

expanded its portfolio to include an additional and complementary strand of work.

The present paper is part of our new series of commissioned reports—the Deeper Learning Research Series—which aim not

only to describe best practices in the nation’s high schools but also to provoke much-needed debate about those schools’

purposes and priorities.

In education circles, it is fast becoming commonplace to argue that in 21st—century America, each and every student must

aim for “college, career, and civic readiness.” However, and as David T. Conley described in the first paper in this series, a

large and growing body of empirical research shows that we are only just beginning to understand what “readiness” really

means. Students’ command of academic skills and content certainly matters, but so too does their ability to communicate

effectively, to work well in teams, to solve complex problems, to persist in the face of challenges, and to monitor and direct

their own learning—in short, the various kinds of knowledge and skills that have been grouped together under the banner

of “deeper learning.”

What does all of this mean for the future of secondary education? If “readiness” requires such ambitious and multi-

dimensional kinds of teaching and learning, then what will it take to help students become genuinely prepared for life after

high school, and what are the implications for policy and practice?

http://www.studentsatthecenter.org

1JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

INTRODUCTION

While there is no single, fixed definition of “deeper learning,” the term tends to be used to describe

a mix of academic, personal, and relational capacities, including elements such as “collaborative

learning,” “critical thinking,” “conceptual understanding,” and “learning how to learn.” Typically,

deeper learning is said to have an affective dimension as well, touching on characteristics such as

“persistence” and “self-motivation,” and advocates often argue that students should be taught to

take responsibility for their own learning through active engagement in their education (Martinez &

McGrath 2014).

In this paper, I argue that the nation’s immigrant students

and English language learners are likely to benefit from

such focused, critical, and engaging classroom instruction.

In fact, one could argue that these children tend to be

better equipped for such teaching and learning than

monolingual, non-immigrant students. However, to the

extent that English language learners are framed as

deficient and in need of remediation, schools tend to

overlook their affinity for deeper learning.

Our public schools have always enrolled significant numbers

of immigrant students, though the numbers have varied

over time. But Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) brought into being the category of

“English Language Learners” (ELLs)—or, as they are still

sometimes referred to, Limited English Proficient (LEP)

students—in 1968. Title VII, also known as the Bilingual

Education Act (BEA), was the first federal acknowledgment

that immigrant students and children who come to school

speaking a language other than English need special

accommodations to ensure their academic success.

This naturally led to the need to identify and label these

students, for the purpose of targeting resources to them.

It is important to note that ELLs and immigrant students

are not one and the same. Most (though certainly not

all) immigrant children spend a period of time as English

language learners, but today most ELLs are not immigrants.

According to current estimates, almost 90 percent of all

ELLs were born in the U.S. Overwhelmingly, then, the

resources dedicated to educating ELL students support

native-born U.S. citizens.

How to best to utilize resources to support ELLs’ learning

has been an ongoing national debate. In 1967, U.S. Senator

“Smilin’ Ralph” Yarborough of Texas, the chief sponsor

of the BEA, went on record in favor of “the creation of

bilingual-bicultural programs, the teaching of Spanish as a

native language...designed to impart to Spanish-speaking

students a knowledge and pride in their culture“ (Schneider

1976, p. 22).1 Many other education activists, heady with

recent victories on civil rights, advocated similar positions.

However, because Yarborough and his allies were unable to

win the support of the Johnson administration, they had

no real hope of passing legislation that would privilege the

language and culture of Spanish speakers.

Overwhelmingly, the resources dedicated to educating ELL students support native-born U.S. citizens.

1 The 1960s was a period of historically low immigration, and to the extent that speakers of languages other than English were acknowledged at all, it was generally limited to the pockets of Spanish speakers mostly clustered in the Southwest and the Miami area.


2

As Mehlman Petrzela (2010) recounts, passage of the bill

depended on its ability to fit into the overall objectives of

the ESEA, which focused on remediating the disadvantages

of poor children, and to not challenge the popular notion

of the “melting pot,” which demanded that immigrants

relinquish their distinctive cultural characteristics.

Moreover, as Moran (1988) notes, “[Yarborough’s] vague

statement of purpose masked fundamental differences

over whether the programs were designed to promote

assimilation by overcoming a language ‘deficiency’ or were

intended to foster pluralism by acknowledging a linguistic

asset” (p. 1273). In the end, the former perspective—defining

English language learners as having a deficiency that

requires remediation—won out. Multiple reauthorizations of

the ESEA have only furthered the emphasis on deficiency.

But the debate did not end there. Since 1967, countless

educators, researchers, politicians, and others have

continued to wrestle over how best to support immigrant

students and English language learners. We now have

nearly 50 years of research on ELL students and

classrooms from which to draw and almost 50 years of

experience with deficit-based policies and practices upon

which to reflect. Moreoever, this is now a very different

nation, demographically and politically, than it was

50 years ago.

In this paper, then, I return to the vision that Yarborough

outlined in 1967, asking once again whether our students

might be better served if we understood their linguistic and

cultural backgrounds as assets, not deficiencies. I begin, in

the following section, by describing the current educational

status of the nation’s ELLs and immigrant students. I go

on to describe the ways in which their skills have been

denigrated, and I consider a number of ways in which

linguistic and cultural diversity and immigrant experiences

might be reframed as valuable resources for deeper

learning. I conclude with recommendations for federal and

state policymaking in this area.


FRAMING AND REFRAMING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND IMMIGRANTS

In the 2012-13 school year, nearly five million students across the U.S., comprising almost 10 percent

of the total school-age population, were designated as English language learners (Zong & Batalova

2015; if one considers all students who come from homes where English is not the primary language

spoken, the figure doubles to more than 20 percent; Ryan, 2013). Many students who today do not

carry the label of ELL, were once ELLs and may still be on a continuum of learning academic English;

most of these students go home every day to an environment in which English is rarely heard.

Because there is no national test of English proficiency or even agreement as to what constitutes

“proficiency” in English for academic purposes, any count of the number of ELLs is, in reality, a best

estimate. And while these children are often referred to as “immigrant children,” as noted above, the

truth is that very few English language learners are born outside the country. In 2013, 88 percent of

children of immigrant parents were native-born citizens (Zong & Batalova 2015).

In the U.S. today, more than 17 million children under age

18 live with at least one immigrant parent, constituting one

in four children overall (Zong & Batalova 2015). Contrary

to popular perceptions, most of the 41 million foreign-

born residents of the U.S. are legal residents; almost half

are naturalized citizens, and only about one-fourth are

unauthorized (Zong & Batalova 2015)—which still means

that millions of children live in a household in which at

least one person is at risk of being deported. This threat

often places strains and restrictions on the entire family.

Children can be distracted from learning due to fears that

one or more of their family members will not be there when

they return from school, or they may hesitate to become

engaged in school, knowing they could be removed at any

moment. This is not an exaggerated concern: according to

recent estimates, roughly 450,000 U.S.-born children now

live in Mexico, most having returned with family members

forced to leave the U.S. (Lakhani 2015).

Seventy-one percent of English language learners speak

Spanish, and the next largest language group is Chinese

(both Mandarin and Cantonese) at just 4 percent, followed

by Vietnamese at 3 percent (Ruiz et al. 2015). Only 5

states claim a language other than Spanish as the primary

non-English language spoken, but in 19 states, more

than three-fourths of English language learners speak

Spanish. Thus while there is great linguistic diversity in

the U.S., with respect to both numbers and concentrations

of students, a few languages predominate, with Spanish

being overwhelmingly the primary non-English language

spoken. This may begin to change, though, as Asians have

overtaken Latinos as the group sending the largest number

of immigrants to the U.S. (Jensen 2015).

While there is great linguistic diversity in the United States, a few languages predominate, with Spanish being overwhelmingly the primary non-English language spoken.


4

The five traditional immigrant “gateway states” continue to be home to nearly two-thirds of all ELLs nationwide, but the greatest growth in English language learner students has been in “new destination” areas.

Students who arrive at school with a primary language other than English are usually defined by what they lack: English language skills.

The size and concentration of languages other than

English has significant implications for how education

systems can serve students. Trying to educate students

from many different language backgrounds in a single

school or classroom can be especially challenging and can

restrict the programmatic options available to educators.

However, where there are large concentrations of a single

language, or just a few languages, and where there are

teachers who speak those languages, there are more

instructional options. For example, bilingual programs can

be mounted in schools where there are many children of

the same language group and teachers prepared to teach

in that language as well as in English. However, where many

different languages are spoken and trained teachers from

those language groups are not available, other program

models must be considered.

The five traditional immigrant “gateway states”—California,

Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois—continue to be home

to nearly two-thirds of all ELLs nationwide, but the greatest

growth in English language learner students has been

in “new destination” areas. In 2009, for example, South

Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee experienced the most

rapid growth in immigration, mainly from non-English

speaking countries (Terrazas 2011). This development

presents major challenges, since states with no history of

such immigration often lack policies and infrastructure

to support these students. Also, the sudden influx of new

immigrants can stimulate a hostile reception in areas where

people feel unprepared to receive newcomers, exacerbating

the trauma many immigrant students experience (Cornelius

2002).

Framing Students who are Speakers of Other Languages

Whether they are immigrants or native-born U.S. citizens,

students who arrive at school with a primary language

other than English are usually defined by what they lack:

English language skills. Thus they have been dubbed

“Limited English Speakers” (LES), “Limited English

Proficient” (LEP), or “English Language Learners” (ELL),

among other labels. This framing has resulted in these

students being viewed as deficient, remedial, or lacking in

fundamental skills that are critical for normal academic

achievement. Thus, most programs that serve these young

people are designed to fix a deficiency, and students are

deemed ready to join the mainstream and have full access

to a regular curriculum only once this is accomplished

(Callahan 2005; Callahan & Gándara 2004).

Recent policy shifts away from supporting bilingual

classrooms (where students can move more or less

seamlessly from using their primary language to speaking

more and more English) to a greater emphasis on

Structured English Immersion (SEI) have led to surging

rates of “reclassification.” Cited as a goal of No Child

Left Behind, and built into its accountability system, the

movement of students to English Proficient status has

become the chief objective of most programs for ELLs. For

example, Arizona created a statewide SEI program that

consists of four hours of English language drills every day,

to the exclusion of most other subject matter instruction,

with the sole goal of reclassifying ELLs, “normally in one

year” (Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012). Of course, the great


FR

AM

ING

AN

D R

EF

RA

MIN

G E

NG

LIS

H L

AN

GU

AG

E L

EA

RN

ER

S A

ND

IMM

IGR

AN

TS

majority of ELLs do not gain proficiency in English in just

one year, so their exclusion from the regular curriculum can

last much longer.

In a 2006 study of California’s program for ELLs,

researchers found that the average student had less

than a 40 percent chance of being reclassified to English

Proficient within 10 years (Parrish et al. 2006). Since that

time, pressure by the state to speed up the process has

resulted in increased rates of reclassification, but even

so, students rarely achieve this goal within a year or

even two (Hill et al. 2014). In any case, one might ask why

educators and policymakers don’t pay more attention to

the quality of the programs offered to ELLs, rather than

simply focusing on the speed at which students escape

them. To date, very little research has been conducted on

the quality and appropriateness of the instruction in such

programs, or on the preparation and skills of their teachers

(apart from small qualitative studies that look at only a

handful of schools). Currently, all we know is that there

is great variation in programs and teacher preparation

across and within states (López et al. 2015), and that states

with specific policies for the instruction of ELLs have

better outcomes for these students than those without

(Rumberger & Tran 2010).

Unfortunately, by the time ELLs are considered proficient

in English, they have often lost so much learning time

that it becomes all but impossible to catch up with their

native English speaking peers (Lillie et al. 2012; Gándara &

Rumberger 2008), which puts many of these students at a

disadvantage that continues throughout their schooling.

Of course, all students in the U.S. need to develop strong

English skills. However, and as I will argue, building on

English language learners’ linguistic strengths as they

acquire English makes better sense than holding them

back on the (unsupported) assumption that they will “catch

up” later. Finally, it should be noted that this insistence on

a sequential approach—first learn English, and then gain

access to the regular curriculum—begs the intent of the

1974 Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols, which found

that English language learners must be given access to the

same curriculum as English speaking students.2

FRAMED BY THE TESTS

The poor performance of ELL students on standardized

assessments fuels the belief that they are fundamentally

deficient and in need of remediation above and beyond all

else. On average, English language learners score lower

on academic achievement tests than almost any other

subgroup except special education students. This remains

true throughout the grades. For example, the 2013 National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that

69 percent of English language learners were below basic

proficiency in eighth-grade mathematics, compared to just

25 percent of non-English language learners. eighth-grade

reading scores were similarly dismal, with 70 percent of

ELLs scoring below basic, compared to 21 percent of non-

ELLs (NAEP 2013). Scores at the fourth-grade level were

similar.

However, it is important to note that since the highest

performing ELLs are constantly being moved out of the ELL

category (reclassified as English proficient), such reports

include only lower-performing ELL students, which is to say

that “English language learners,” by definition, will have low

scores. This has prompted many researchers (e.g., Hopkins

et al. 2013) to argue that, for purposes of monitoring the

performance of former ELLs, and for making appropriate

comparisons between ELLs and non-ELLs, data should be

collected and reported for the category “Ever ELL,” which

would include students who have been reclassified.

Nonetheless, comparisons over time should reflect whether

ELLs are gaining ground, losing ground, or maintaining

the same level of performance relative to non-ELLs. On

that score, it appears that the education reforms of the

last couple of decades have not closed gaps. For example,

nationally, since 1996 (the first year for which the NAEP

shows gap trend lines for English language learners), the

gap between English language learners and all others in

eighth grade math has not narrowed, and in fact has begun

to widen: in 2003, the gap between English language

learners and English speakers who scored proficient was 20

points; in 2013 the gap had grown to 24 points. Eighth grade

reading proficiency showed a similar widening of the gap (3

points) over the same period. At least from the perspective

2 The Lau v Nichols (1974) decision was based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which found that not providing English learners with access to the same curriculum that all other students receive is a violation of the non-discrimination clause regarding national origin (and interpreted to include language). The Court did not provide a specific remedy, only affirming that the ELL students needed to be provided with a means to access the regular curriculum as quickly as possible.


6

of math and reading score gaps, educational achievement

has not improved nationally for English language learners,

who, across the grades, remain significantly behind their

native English-speaking peers.

BARRiERS TO ACADEMiC ACHiEvEMENT

Language difference is just one—and perhaps not even the

most important—of many reasons for these achievement

gaps, although the way schools treat language difference

certainly plays an important role in sustaining them. For

example, many schools insist on teaching academic classes

in English from day one, even though students may not yet

understand what their teachers are saying. Further, many

schools neglect to assess what their ELLs know and can do

in their primary language, and thus often assign perfectly

capable, even high-achieving, students to remedial courses

solely because their English is weak.

With a few exceptions (including New York, Texas, and

Illinois), states require students to take achievement tests

in English. In some cases, the state has the capacity to

test students in their native language but chooses not to

because it has adopted English-only instructional policies,

which educators take to require assessment in English.

Other states, however, simply lack the capacity to offer tests

in other languages and have not dedicated resources to

developing them. Whatever the reasons, when schools test

students in a language they do not fully comprehend and

make educational decisions based on these invalid scores,

they contribute to ELLs’ low performance.

That said, many immigrant students and ELLs are

significantly disadvantaged educationally, but not

necessarily for reasons having to do with language. Rather,

their struggles may result from a history of weak and

interrupted instruction, or from the effects of poverty or

other challenges. Some educators or policymakers may

be tempted to blame students for their poor performance

or attribute it to their lack of English proficiency, when in

fact other variables (that are out of the students’ control)

constrain their achievement.

Poverty is perhaps the greatest threat to all low-income

students’ academic achievement because it can directly

affect cognitive development through inadequate nutrition,

poor health care, mental health challenges, distractibility,

insecurity, and other factors (Berliner 2006; Carter &

Welner 2013). Chronic health problems associated with

poverty are also related to high absenteeism from school,

putting students even further behind (Berliner 2006).

More than 40 percent of children of Latino immigrants

are born into poverty (Lichter et al. 2015). Further, this

population is especially likely to fall into deep poverty—in

2014, more than one in eight of these children lived below

50 percent of the poverty line (less than $12,000 a year for

a family of four), compared to about 6 percent of all other

children (U.S. Census 2015). Since Latino immigrants make

up about half of the nation’s immigrants (Zong & Batalova

2015), that means that a significant portion of the nation’s

immigrant children and English language learners are living

in poverty, many of them below subsistence level. To make

matters worse, many social services are not available to

immigrant families (even those who are legally authorized

to be in the country) because of punitive federal and

local laws (Hagan & Rodriguez 2002). Additionally, Latino

children of immigrants are less likely to attend preschool

than any other subgroup (Murphey et al. 2014), so the

ameliorating effects of early childhood education are not

available to nearly half of these young English language

learners.

Barriers to effective learning continue into the secondary

grades, where these young people are often lost in the

shuffle, placed with teachers who may not know they

have English language learners in their classes. Overall,

middle and high school students identified as ELLs are

roughly twice as likely to drop out as their peers (Callahan

Middle and high school students identified as ELLs are roughly twice as likely to drop out as their peers.


FR

AM

ING

AN

D R

EF

RA

MIN

G E

NG

LIS

H L

AN

GU

AG

E L

EA

RN

ER

S A

ND

IMM

IGR

AN

TS

2013). Thus, it should come as no surprise that Latino

youth, approximately half of whom begin school as English

language learners, are the least likely to complete a college

education compared to the other major racial/ethnic

subgroups (Gándara & Contreras 2009).

For most immigrant students and for those classified as

ELLs at the secondary level, two-year colleges are the only

viable option because of weak preparation in high school

and the costs of postsecondary education (Martinez-Wenzl

2014). Unfortunately, most who enter two-year colleges

will never complete a degree, and end up simply incurring

college debt without seeing the increase in earning power

that a college degree provides (Huelsman 2015).

THE TRAUMA OF THE MiGRATiON EXPERiENCE

While most ELL students are U.S.-born, their parents

are usually immigrants. Many of these families have

experienced great trauma, having left their home countries

to escape war, gang activity, deep poverty, natural disasters,

and other crises. Often, this means leaving everything

behind, including close friends and relatives, which can take

an enormous psychological toll on family members (Falicov

2002, Suárez-Orozco et al. 2001), adding to the stress of

the migration experience and weighing heavily on children

as they try to adapt to a new country, new language,

and new expectations, with few if any support services.

Once they arrive in the U.S., immigrant families are often

isolated from the mainstream and segregated by ethnicity,

language, and poverty (Orfield 1995; Orfield & Yun 1999).

Further, they tend to lack knowledge of how to navigate the

educational system. Frequent residential moves (as parents

seek employment) can mean frequent changes in school

enrollment, putting these students at increased educational

risk (Ream 2005).

Of course, there are enormous differences in socioeconomic

status among the children of immigrants in the U.S. For

example, two-thirds of Taiwanese immigrant mothers

hold at least a Bachelor’s degree, while only slightly more

than 3 percent of Mexican mothers have a college degree;

similarly, less than 20 percent of Taiwanese immigrant

families live at or near poverty, but more than two-thirds

of Mexican immigrant families fall into this category

(Hernandez et al. 2006). Indeed, many Asian immigrants

enter the country with higher levels of education, and

often greater ability to navigate the educational system,

than the native U.S. population (Lee & Zhou 2014). Such

examples notwithstanding, the great majority of children of

immigrants come from low-income families with relatively

low levels of formal education.

Further, the many undocumented young people known

as “Dreamers”—those who were brought to the country

at an early age and may have discovered only recently

that they aren’t U.S. citizens—live in constant fear of being

apprehended (Gonzalez 2011). Unable to apply legally to

work or drive a car or (in most states) pay in-state college

tuition, Dreamers often struggle to find the motivation to

work hard in school and prepare for a career. The Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, launched

in June 2012 by the Obama Administration, has provided

some relief for more than half a million young people who

meet its very strict criteria. However, it is estimated that

at least another half million meet the criteria but have

not come forward, perhaps because they fear identifying

themselves to government officials, lack information

about the program, worry that they cannot provide the

necessary documentation, or are simply unable to pay the

$465 application fee (Kasperkevic 2014). They may worry,

also, that DACA protections could disappear overnight, as

has been called for by some politicians. Thus, the specter

of deportation still hangs over many of these young

immigrants, casting a shadow over every part of their lives,

including education.

Reframing ELLs and immigrant Students: Assets and Opportunities

In spite of the many challenges they face (and perhaps

because of them), these students can also be viewed as

advantaged in certain ways, possessing some important

skills and dispositions that monolingual and mono-cultural

students may lack. Their most obvious asset is the ability

to speak another language (in most cases a major world

language that is highly valued in the labor market), but

there are others. Often, ELLs and immigrant students have

complex, multinational perspectives on history, culture, and

politics; belong to a culture that prizes collaboration (which

is now seen as a critical 21st-century skill); display greater

motivation to learn than many native-born peers; and have

become strongly resilient and self-reliant (Garcia et al. 2012;

APA 2012). What these characteristics all have in common,

of course, is their association with key features of deeper

learning.


8

MULTiLiNGUALiSM

Multilingualism has been shown to be associated with a

series of cognitive advantages, including a greater ability to

invoke multiple perspectives in problem solving (Bialystok

2001). The multilingual student knows intuitively that there

is more than one way to get to the right answer or define

a concept because she does this routinely. Research also

shows that multilingualism is related to less distractibility

and greater ability to focus attention on a task (Bialystok

2001), another prerequisite to engaging learning in a

deeper way. In fact, Guadalupe Valdés (2003) has argued

that young immigrant children who function as interpreters

for their family members exhibit a special kind of giftedness

in moving back and forth across languages and cultures, as

they extract and represent meaning for others.

A recent analysis of data from the U.S. Department of

Education’s Education Longitudinal Study—which has

followed the progress of more than 15,000 young people

since 2002, when they were in tenth grade—offers further

evidence that bilingualism confers a strong advantage.

Lucrecia Santibañez and Stela Zárate (2014) found that

students from immigrant families (both Asian and Latino)

who maintained their primary language at high levels, and

thus became balanced bilinguals, were more likely to go to

college than those who lost their primary language; among

Latinos, they were more likely to go to four year colleges.

The researchers hypothesized that the bilinguals’ greater

success in getting to college was probably due to having

more extensive social networks. That is, they had greater

social capital than the monolingual children of immigrants

and therefore more support and access to knowledge

about enrolling in higher education. Ruben Rumbaut

(2014) has found similar advantages for balanced bilingual

adolescents with respect to high school graduation, perhaps

due to greater social networks or perhaps, as others have

theorized, because adolescents who maintain the family

language communicate more intensively with parents and

extended family, and therefore are more likely to receive

and heed advice about completing school and going on to

postsecondary education (Portes & Hao 1992). Certainly,

the development of sophisticated cognitive skills coupled

with greater social assets paves the way for equally

sophisticated learning.

MULTiCULTURALiSM

Having an insider’s knowledge of another country and

having learned to navigate everyday life in more than one

culture may also help students to be more cognitively

flexible (Bialystok 2001)—i.e., to understand that problems

can be assessed and solved in more than one way. Cognitive

flexibility is also related to creativity, the ability to imagine

alternative ways of representing ideas and experiences,

also known, in psychological parlance, as divergent or novel

thinking (Sternberg 1999).

The biological concept of “hybridization”—bringing together

two or more varieties of an organism to create stronger,

more resilient progeny—may be a useful analogy here:

a hybrid cultural identity can be a powerful asset for

individuals and groups. For example, Scott Page (2008) has

shown through a variety of novel experiments that diverse

groups tend to be more creative and better at problem

solving than homogeneous groups. Thus, by bringing

greater diversity to classrooms, the inclusion of immigrants

and ELLs can benefit all students, prompting them to think

differently about concepts and problems presented in the

curriculum.

Further, by virtue of having learned to live and study within

a new cultural environment, immigrant students can be

particularly welcoming of differences, skilled at inter-

cultural communication (Genesee & Gándara 1999), and

comfortable working on diverse teams—characteristics that

employers often describe as highly valuable (Forbes Insight

2013).

Immigrant students can be particularly welcoming of differences, skilled at intercultural communication, and comfortable working on diverse teams—characteristics that employers often describe as highly valuable.


FR

AM

ING

AN

D R

EF

RA

MIN

G E

NG

LIS

H L

AN

GU

AG

E L

EA

RN

ER

S A

ND

IMM

IGR

AN

TS

The children of immigrants, as a group, often attained better educational outcomes than subsequent generations.

iMMiGRANT OPTiMiSM

Research on adolescent English language learners has

found that motivation is the key prerequisite to educational

success (Meltzer & Hamann 2003). Students from

immigrant backgrounds can be especially motivated by

their parents’ strong belief in the “American Dream” for

their children. In examining the educational trajectories of

immigrant students, Grace Kao and Marta Tienda (1995)

famously observed that this contributes to what they called

the “immigrant paradox.” They found (and this has been

confirmed by several other studies) that the children of

immigrants, as a group, often attained better educational

outcomes than subsequent generations—i.e., the opposite of

the classic immigrant paradigm, in which each generation

outperforms the one that came before it.

In a more recent study of four generations of Mexican

immigrants in Texas, Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz (2009)

found that the children of immigrants completed more

years of education than third- and fourth-generation

members of the same families. Telles and Ortiz offer

structural explanations (e.g., weak schooling) for the

failure of post-immigration generations to prosper, but

other researchers suggest a psychological explanation: to

a large extent, the success of first-generation immigrant

students may be due to their belief that success is in fact

possible, combined with a strong appreciation for their

parents’ sacrifices. According to researchers Carola and

Marcelo Suárez-Orozco (1995), the “immigrant optimism” of

parents—the belief that opportunities are greater in the new

land—often propels children to work harder to achieve the

“American Dream,” even in the face of daunting obstacles.

And in contrast to the limited options available in the

old country, the American Dream may seem all the more

tangible.

Further, confronting the challenges associated with the

immigrant experience (learning a new language, adapting

to a new culture, perhaps having to cope with the hazards

of a difficult neighborhood or contending with peers who

are disengaged from school) can also lead adolescents

to develop certain dispositions that psychologists have

found to be far more important than sheer intelligence

(Duckworth et al. 2007).

Disillusioned with the limited ability of measured

intelligence alone to predict life outcomes, researchers

have looked increasingly to affective variables to help

explain young people’s varying levels of success in school,

work, and other settings. Especially important seem to be

characteristics such as stress management, adaptability,

interpersonal skills, and persistence, each of which is

highly relevant to the experience of trying to make one’s

way in an unfamiliar country and new language, often with

few resources. As Birgit Leyendecker and Michael Lamb

(1998) attest, “Successful immigration demands enormous

resourcefulness and flexible adaptation to new and

changing circumstances” (p. 251).

COLLABORATivE ORiENTATiON

It is important to keep in mind that Latinos and Asians

comprise the overwhelming majority of immigrant students

in U.S. schools. Of course, not all members of an ethnic or

racial group can be presumed to share the same values and

beliefs. That said, however, some patterns of socialization

do tend to be broadly shared within cultural groups, which

can have important implications for teaching and learning.

For example, consider Uri Triesman’s work in mathematics

education at the University of California, Berkeley, four

decades ago, which served as the foundation for his well-

known Emerging Scholars model of instruction (Asera

2001). Observing the study habits and academic outcomes

of Chinese and African-American students, Triesman noted

that the Chinese students naturally formed study groups

and helped each other to figure out problems, while the

African-American students tended to study alone, without


10

the help or support of peers. Reasoning that this difference

in study habits could help explain why the Chinese students

were outperforming the African-American students,

Triesman incorporated their model of peer teaching and

support into his math program for minority students at

Berkeley, and he quickly saw a dramatic increase in their

academic achievement. Although Triesman did not use the

term “deeper learning,” what the Chinese students were

doing was entirely consistent with its tenets—they were

figuring out collaboratively how to make sense of and solve

complex mathematical problems.

Similarly, psychologists have long noted a preference for

cooperative versus competitive peer interactions among

Latino students, especially those raised in traditional Latino

cultures (Knight et al. 1995). This preference is believed to

be linked to socialization in the home, particularly to Latina

mothers’ greater emphasis on cooperative and respectful

family interactions, relative to Euro-American mothers’

tendency to encourage more individualistic behavior

and independence (Leyendecker & Lamb 1998). While an

emphasis on individualistic behavior serves students well

in settings where they are expected to study alone and

compete with their peers for the right answer, preference

for cooperative behavior would seem to lend itself to the

kinds of shared inquiry and teamwork that are cornerstones

of the deeper learning model.

RESiLiENCE

Psychologists have been keenly interested in the topic of

resilience for more than 50 years, and a number of leading

researchers have dedicated themselves to exploring its

role in human development (e.g., Rutter 1979; Werner 1995;

Masten 2001). Defined as “a dynamic process encompassing

positive adaptation within the context of significant

adversity” (Luthar et al. 2000, p. 543), its relevance to the

lives of immigrant children is readily apparent.

In spite of often traumatic uprooting from their homes,

harrowing migration passages, and hostile receptions in

the new land, immigrant children often arrive in the U.S.

full of hope for the future, with a drive to succeed in school.

There is no consensus as to what, exactly, leads so many

young people to develop such positive outlooks in the face

of such adversity. However, such resilience does appear

to be common. Indeed, some researchers have found that

immigrants, in spite of their travails, actually demonstrate

better mental and physical health than the native-born

population (Tienda & Mitchell 2006: APA 2012).

Bonnie Benard (2004) argues that four “personal

strengths,” or manifestations of resilience, can be observed

in resilient children: (1) social competence; (2) problem

solving; (3) autonomy; and (4) sense of purpose—virtually

all research studies of resilience have associated it with

characteristics that fit easily into these four categories

(though the terminology may vary). In order to survive

and prosper in an alien environment, immigrant children

must attend carefully to the behaviors that constitute

social competence, must learn to solve problems in novel

situations, and often must do these things with little peer

or adult assistance because they do not speak the same

language—literally or figuratively—as their classmates and

teachers. A sense of purpose, the fourth strength, is often

provided by parents who embody the notion of sacrifice for

the chance at a better life, a lesson their children learn daily

(Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco 1995).

Having developed these forms of resilience, many

immigrant students would seem to be well-suited to the

kind of engaged, critical, challenging school experiences

that the deeper learning movement heralds. However, to the

extent that these students are framed as deficient and in

need of remediation, these strengths tend to be overlooked.

This is not to say that the performance of immigrant

students would greatly improve if only their teachers came

to recognize the assets they bring with them to school.

As the researcher Gordon Allport (1954) hypothesized

more than 60 years ago, in order to reduce the prejudice

and negative stereotypes that affect the performance

of minority students, conditions would also need to be

created that allow those students to engage in equal status

interactions with individuals from majority groups.

Three decades later, Elizabeth Cohen (1986) demonstrated

how this theory can be applied by creating instructional

contexts in which students of minority and majority

backgrounds have opportunities for equal status contact,

allowing them to break down their negative stereotypes

of each other. In these classrooms, non-mainstream

students are also viewed as purveyors of knowledge

with commensurate, albeit sometimes different, skills

as mainstream students. Such classrooms level the

educational playing field for minority (in this case ELL

and immigrant) students. However, Cohen has also shown

that this “complex instruction” requires considerable skill


FR

AM

ING

AN

D R

EF

RA

MIN

G E

NG

LIS

H L

AN

GU

AG

E L

EA

RN

ER

S A

ND

IMM

IGR

AN

TS

and diligence on the part of the teacher, and interactions

must be carefully planned and choreographed. Students

must be organized so that each can make an important

contribution to the group, and groups must be mixed often

so that students do not acquire fixed labels (e.g., the smart

kid, the dumb kid). Thus, teachers must be both amenable

to extensive training and committed to the goals of equity

in education. With those conditions in place, ELL and

immigrant students could exploit their advantages to lead

the way to deeper learning for the whole class.

What Would Truly Effective Secondary Schooling Look Like for ELLs and immigrant Students?

Over the last several decades, policymakers have debated

the most effective way to educate English language learners

and immigrant students, but virtually all of those debates

have centered on how best to achieve rapid transition to

English and assimilation to the dominant culture (Martínez-

Wenzl et al. 2012), without real consideration to other goals.

If the only goal were for students to achieve rapid

transition to oral English in the early grades (and

concomitant assimilation in the mainstream culture), then

it might indeed be preferable to provide an English-only

instructional program. As Fred Genesee and his colleagues

(2006) found in a massive review of research on the

education of English language learners, “Evaluations

conducted in the early years of a program (Grades K-3)

typically reveal that students in bilingual education scored

below grade level,” (p. 201), and were outperformed by

students in English immersion programs.

But if one takes a longer view—defining the goal as helping

students to achieve at high levels over the course of their

schooling, as well as becoming reclassified as English

proficient—then bilingual and dual language instruction

show the strongest outcomes (Umansky & Reardon 2015;

Valentino & Reardon 2015). Genesee and his colleagues go

on to note:

Almost all evaluations of students at the end of

elementary school and in middle and high school show

that the educational outcomes of bilingually educated

students, especially those in late-exit and two-way

programs, were at least comparable to and usually

higher than their comparison peers (p. 201).

For example, Ilana Umansky and Sean Reardon (2015)

followed a large cohort of ELL students from kindergarten

to high school. The students had been in English-

only, bilingual, or dual language programs in the same

large district. Carefully controlling for all observable

characteristics that could influence educational outcomes,

the researchers found that the bilingually educated

students outperformed the English-only students on all

outcome measures: proficiency in English, reclassification

as English proficient, and achievement in English language

arts.

Further, if the educational goals for ELLs include preparing

for and going to college, then there is additional reason to

support bilingual and dual language instruction. As noted

earlier, an exhaustive analysis of federal data found a

significant relationship between balanced bilingualism and

going to college (Santibañez & Zárate 2014). Using another

U.S. Department of Education data set (NELS), Orhan

Agirdag (2014) found that once students “with immigrant

roots” who maintained their primary language entered

the labor force, they earned several thousand dollars a

year more than students who lost their primary language

abilities. A study of yet another merged data set, which

focused on adolescence and early adulthood in Southern

California, found a similar earnings advantage for balanced

bilinguals, in addition to higher rates of high school

graduation (Rumbaut 2014).

Finally, the host of personal and interpersonal benefits

that accrue to speaking more than one language provide

yet another reason to choose a program of study for

ELL students that includes development of the primary

language. For example, evidence suggests that a strong

identity plays an important role in school success for ethnic

The host of personal and interpersonal benefits that accrue to speaking more than one language provide yet another reason to choose a program of study for ELL students that includes development of the primary language.


12

minority students (Portes & Hao 1982), and families that

maintain strong ties with a native culture are more likely to

reinforce this identity and sustain the primary language in

the home, thus providing critical support for bilingualism.

It is commonly believed that most English language

learners enter kindergarten or first grade not speaking

English, and they can quickly become fluent English

speakers because “they are little sponges.” In truth,

however, ELL students enter the education pipeline at all

grade levels. Significant numbers of ELLs attend middle

and high school, either because they have recently entered

school in the U.S. or because their prior schooling has been

so weak or interrupted that they have not acquired the

academic English that allows them to advance. In California,

for example, as many as 30 percent of ELLs are found in

secondary schools, and immigrant students are scattered

across the grade levels.

Regardless of the strength of the education they received

before entering the U.S., schools assess relatively few of

these students in their primary language to determine

what they know or are actually capable of doing, and

provide few of them with a rigorous curriculum, including

a full complement of college preparatory courses

(Callahan 2005). Notable exceptions to this pattern

include International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, offered

at various schools across the country, that focus on

developing the linguistic and academic skills of immigrant

and secondary ELL students. Aldana and Meyer (2014)

report that these programs often spring up in response

to intense dissatisfaction with local schools serving ELL

students, and they provide rigorous, college preparatory

courses in both English and a second language. They

require competence in at least two languages (one being

English), but do not privilege any language, so students can

learn in their strongest language while developing the other.

These and other two-way dual language programs also

have the benefit of increasing the prestige of the school

and thus attracting more middle-class and high-performing

students from surrounding communities, breaking down the

cultural isolation that ELLs often experience, and increasing

the benefits of diversity for all students in the program or

school.

Project SOL (Secondary Online Learning) is another

innovation designed to provide rigorous, college

preparatory mathematics, aligned with the Common Core

State Standards, in an online and Spanish/English bilingual

format that can be accessed by secondary students who

are not yet ready to read textbooks in English, and by

teachers who lack the materials to teach those students in

Spanish. In recent years, Project SOL has allowed hundreds

of immigrant students in California to take and pass the

courses they need to graduate from high school and

prepare for college. Because the format is totally bilingual,

students are able to use and build on both languages

(Gándara 2013).


CONCLUSION: STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY RECONSIDERED

When discussion turns to legal and political matters, it is important to note some key differences

between English language learners and immigrant students. While most immigrant students are

English language learners at some point in their lives, relatively few English language learners are

immigrants. Today, an estimated 88 percent of ELLs are native-born citizens of the U.S. (Zong &

Batalova 2015). Thus, they enjoy the same legal protections and should receive the same access to

education provided to every other U.S. citizen.

While unauthorized immigrant students do not enjoy the

privileges of citizenship, the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision

in Plyler v. Doe did accord them free access to public

education through high school. Inadvertently, this also

created the predicament that now faces the “Dreamers,”

those students brought to the U.S. at a young age by their

parents, without legal authorization, who lack educational

rights or even opportunities to work, once they leave high

school.

Ironically, as the research has converged on the many

benefits of bilingualism, both for academic and other

deeper learning outcomes, education policy appears

to have moved in the opposite direction. The Bilingual

Education Act was already being undermined at the

law’s first reauthorization in 1974, and for the most part

continued to move, in subsequent reauthorizations, away

from instruction in the primary language. Finally, in 2001,

with the last reauthorization of ESEA—No Child Left Behind

(NCLB)—the BEA disappeared altogether. The office of

Bilingual Education was renamed the Office of English

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and

Academic Achievement. The term “bilingual” was nowhere

to be found.

In recent years, Arne Duncan—U.S. Secretary of Education

from 2008 to late 2015—has touted the importance of

bilingualism many times, asserting, for example, that, “[It]

is clearly an asset that these kids are coming to school

with,” which should be “maintained,” and, “The fact that our

kids don’t grow up [bilingual] puts them at a competitive

disadvantage” (Maxwell 2013). However, the federal

government has no policy to foster bilingualism, maintains

no office dedicated to bilingualism, and has made no

effort to promote biculturalism. Rather, policymakers have

focused on the rapid acquisition of English only. Moreover,

the NCLB’s approach to accountability embodies this

focus on English-only instruction: scores on tests given in

English (often before students actually know the language)

determine the academic progress of ELLs.

As of the present moment, Congress is debating the

reauthorization of ESEA, and the specifics of the new law

have yet to be decided. However, indications are that ELLs

and immigrant students will be no better served in the

proposed law than in the current one.

At the state and local levels, the original Bilingual Education

Act served as a strong impetus for the creation of policies

to guide the education of ELL students. Prior to 1968, no

Ironically, as the research has converged on the many benefits of bilingualism, education policy appears to have moved in the opposite direction.


14

state had a pro-bilingual education policy on the books

(Moran 1988), but by 1983, all fifty states permitted bilingual

education and nine states had laws requiring some form of

dual language instruction (Ovando & Collier 1985). However,

attacks on primary language instruction continued to pick

up steam over the 1970s and 1980s, and by mid-1990s, with

immigration reaching exceptionally high levels, California

led the way in anti-immigrant legislation, beginning in 1994

with an extremely punitive law that eventually was found

unconstitutional. The state outlawed affirmative action in

1996 and culminated it attack with an anti-bilingual law—

Proposition 227—in 1998. Other states and regions followed

California’s lead, resulting in a steep national decline in

primary language instruction. The last study commissioned

by the federal government found that between 1992 and

2002, English-only instruction (allowing no use of primary

language for any purpose) increased from 34 to 48 percent

of all ELLs (Zehler et al. 2003). That figure is likely to be

much higher today, given increasing restrictions at the state

and local level.

The advent of the Common Core State Standards, currently

being implemented across forty-three states in one form or

another, could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

While the Common Core holds great potential for moving

instruction towards the goals of deeper learning and

placing a greater emphasis on language use and conceptual

learning, indications are that teachers in general are not

sufficiently prepared to undertake the kind of instruction

it requires, and teachers of English language learners are

even less prepared (Editorial Projects in Education Research

Center 2013). Preparation and training for teachers of ELL

and immigrant students, whether in bilingual or English-

only settings, remains a major policy issue that has received

inadequate attention.

How Should Federal and State Education Policy Change to Better Meet the Needs of ELLs and immigrant Students?

> While the federal role in education policy has

traditionally been restricted by the Constitution,

and consisted of little more than setting a tone and

providing modest specific funding for disadvantaged

students, in recent years the Department of Education

has increasingly encroached on territory once reserved

for the states. NCLB’s heavy emphasis on accountability

through testing set a new bar for federal intervention,

and while it importantly called attention to the needs

of ELL students, it also stigmatized them and their

schools. Unable to perform adequately on tests given

in a language they do not understand, ELL students

have been blamed for putting their schools at risk for

sanctions. This policy must change. There are many

alternatives to consider, including: (1) providing more

time for students to acquire English before testing them

in English; (2) continuing the testing, but reducing its

high stakes; (3) providing bilingual testing for students

straddling two languages; (4) offering alternative

assessments while students are still learning English.

> Because the federal government does set a tone for the

nation, states will likely respond favorably to policies

that incentivize the provision of bilingual and bicultural

education. The federal government could declare once

and for all that immigrant children are a net asset to

the nation and their strengths should be celebrated.

One way to do this is to create a national Seal of

Biliteracy that would be awarded to all students who can

demonstrate high levels of proficiency in two or more

languages upon high school or college graduation—a

skill that is of great interest to college admission

officers and employers. Nine states already have such a

certification, and several more are considering it. Over

time, this should lead to greater prestige for programs

that promote biliteracy, such as dual language programs

that enroll both English language learners and English

speakers who are striving to become bilingual. Not only

does this have the potential to bring ELLs into equal

status relations with their English speaking peers, but

it can also help integrate schools, which have become

increasingly segregated for ELLs and immigrant

students.

> The provision of high quality instruction for English

language learners requires the recruitment and

preparation of bilingual teachers with highly specialized

skills—for the nation’s ELLs and immigrant students,

there is no greater need. It has proven to be quite

challenging for schools to provide equitable instruction

in heterogeneous classrooms, and doing so requires

much training and vigilance. The challenge is doubly

difficult in the case of bilingual equitable instruction.

Add to this the implementation of the Common Core

standards with ELLs, and any school or district has a tall

order. In short, the nation urgently needs a large cadre

of highly trained, highly skilled, bilingual teachers, and

all levels of government would do well to consider how

they can help develop such a cadre. Fortunately, with


CO

NC

LU

SIO

N: S

TAT

E A

ND

FE

DE

RA

L P

OL

ICY R

EC

ON

SID

ER

ED

one in four young people coming from a home in which

a second language is spoken, the candidates for these

positions are available. But their talents must be tapped.

> New federal legislation should attend to the

extraordinary needs of regions that have seen new and

unprecedented enrollments of immigrant students,

where schools have no existing infrastructure to meet

those students’ needs, either culturally or linguistically.

The federal government could provide additional

funding for these states and districts to hire university

and district personnel to ramp up training of teachers—

and, given the advantages of dual-language instruction,

it would be advisable to place special emphasis on the

production and recruitment of bilingual teachers.

> There is an urgent need for the federal and state

governments to collect good data on how ELLs and

immigrant students are faring. At present, we simply do

not know. The performance of students who are labeled

as Limited English Proficient looks appallingly bad,

according to test scores, while those who manage to

reclassify as English Proficient often outperform native

speakers. However both of these findings are, in large

part, statistical artifacts. Students classified as LEP are

required to take tests in a language (English) that, by

definition, they do not yet understand, while reclassified

students have achieved that status by passing tests

that would be difficult for many of the native English

speakers to whom they are compared. Further, we know

little about how these newly English proficient students

do over the long term (though there are indications that

many do not fare well as academic demands increase;

Lillie et al. 2012; Slama 2014). It is critical that we

monitor these students over time.

> A good way to begin writing a new chapter for ELL

and immigrant students would be to return to Senator

Yarborough’s initial vision of a Bilingual Education Act

that would incorporate not only the native language

but also the culture of the children it served. Many of

the assets these students have are embedded in the

traditions they bring with them from home, which are

often the very same characteristics that can propel

them to deeper learning.

> Finally, it is also critical that the federal government

develop an immigration policy that supports all

students, rather than punishing some children for

things that are beyond their control, and that respects

immigrant families that have contributed to their

communities and to the nation. States, too, can pass

laws that protect students within their borders, such as

policies that extend in-state college tuition rates to all

residents, as well as providing all residents with access

to driver’s and professional licenses that allow them

to be insured and pursue meaningful occupations and

professions.

With these fundamentals in place, ELLs and immigrant

students could take full advantage of the assets they bring

to school and could share these assets with their native

English-speaking peers. These students could even be a

leading force in the movement for deeper learning.

There is an urgent need for the federal and state governments to collect good data on how ELLs and immigrant students are faring.

The provision of high quality instruction for English language learners requires the recruitment and preparation of bilingual teachers with highly specialized skills—for the nation’s ELLs and immigrant students, there is no greater need.

DEEPER LEARNING RESEARCH SERIES | DEEPER LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESii

EDiTORS’ iNTRODUCTiON TO THE DEEPER LEARNiNG RESEARCH SERiES

In 2010, Jobs for the Future—with support from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation—launched the Students at the Center

initiative, an effort to identify, synthesize, and share research findings on effective approaches to teaching and learning at

the high school level.

The initiative began by commissioning a series of white papers on key topics in secondary schooling, such as student

motivation and engagement, cognitive development, classroom assessment, educational technology, and mathematics and

literacy instruction.

Together, these reports—collected in the edited volume Anytime, Anywhere: Student-Centered Learning for Schools and

Teachers, published by Harvard Education Press in 2013—make a compelling case for what we call “student-centered”

practices in the nation’s high schools. Ours is not a prescriptive agenda; we don’t claim that all classrooms must conform to

a particular educational model. But we do argue, and the evidence strongly suggests, that most, if not all, students benefit

when given ample opportunities to

> Participate in ambitious and rigorous instruction tailored to their individual needs and interests

> Advance to the next level, course, or grade based on demonstrations of their skills and content knowledge

> Learn outside of the school and the typical school day

> Take an active role in defining their own educational pathways

Students at the Center will continue to gather the latest research and synthesize key findings related to student

engagement and agency, competency education, and other critical topics. Also, we have developed—and have made

available at www.studentsatthecenter.org—a wealth of free, high-quality tools and resources designed to help educators

implement student-centered practices in their classrooms, schools, and districts.

Further, and thanks to the generous support of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Students at the Center has

expanded its portfolio to include an additional and complementary strand of work.

The present paper is part of our new series of commissioned reports—the Deeper Learning Research Series—which aim not

only to describe best practices in the nation’s high schools but also to provoke much-needed debate about those schools’

purposes and priorities.

In education circles, it is fast becoming commonplace to argue that in 21st century America, each and every student must

aim for “college, career, and civic readiness.” However, and as David Conley described in the first paper in this series, a

large and growing body of empirical research shows that we are only just beginning to understand what “readiness” really

means. Students’ command of academic skills and content certainly matters, but so too does their ability to communicate

effectively, to work well in teams, to solve complex problems, to persist in the face of challenges, and to monitor and direct

their own learning—in short, the various kinds of knowledge and skills that have been grouped together under the banner

of “deeper learning.”

What does all of this mean for the future of secondary education? If “readiness” requires such ambitious and multi-

dimensional kinds of teaching and learning, then what will it take to help students become genuinely prepared for life after

high school, and what are the implications for policy and practice?

http://www.studentsatthecenter.org

Part 2: Deeper Learning for Students with Disabilities

.


INTRODUCTION

Currently, more than six million students with disabilities (comprising 13 percent of the total student

population) attend elementary and secondary schools across the United States (National Center

for Education Statistics 2013). The majority of them—close to four million—spend most of the school

day in general education classes and most are capable of meeting the goals described by advocates

of deeper learning. However, policy discussions about deeper learning have yet to focus serious

attention on the kinds of support these students require to become truly prepared for college,

careers, and civic life.

One complicating factor is that this population is

enormously varied. For example, students with identified

learning disabilities (more than 2 million) differ in important

ways from those with speech and language impairments

(1.5 million), autism (417,000), intellectual disabilities (over

400,000), emotional disturbances (nearly 400,000), or

visual, hearing, and other impairments.

How can general education teachers provide opportunities

for deeper learning to such a wide range of students? While

we are mindful of the many ways in which individuals and

groups of students can differ from one another, we also

find strong support in the research literature for several

core instructional practices that are feasible to implement

in every classroom and that facilitate learning for students

with many kinds of needs.

Further, we argue that the field of special education has

important insights and expertise to share with the deeper

learning movement in general.

As defined by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,

deeper learning includes not just mastery of high-level

academic content but also the development of capacities

such as thinking critically, solving complex problems,

working collaboratively, communicating effectively, and

learning how to learn (Hewlett Foundation 2013). These are,

it should be noted, learning goals that special education

teachers and researchers have long prioritized. Indeed, a

number of instructional strategies that are now considered

mainstream were originally developed for students with

disabilities. Supporters of deeper learning would no doubt

endorse these strategies, such as the teaching of peer-

mediated learning activities, self-regulation, and problem

solving (Fuchs et al. 2008; Harris, Graham, & Mason 2006).

And among special education’s recommended practices

are several that would likely prove just as beneficial to the

wider student population, such as modifications to pacing,

direct and systematic instruction paired with explicit

practice, strategies to support motivation and attention,

and increased instructional time, among others (Fuchs et al.

2008; Gersten et al. 2008; Vaughn et al. 2012).

In the following pages, we review previous efforts to

promote better educational outcomes for students with

disabilities. We also describe research-based instructional

strategies that can support them and other struggling

learners and the kinds of policies and local resources

needed to ensure that all young people have meaningful

opportunities to learn deeply and become truly prepared to

succeed in college, careers, and civic life.

We hope that at the conclusion of this paper, readers will

understand that when schools make use of readily available

teaching strategies and supports, even students who face

quite serious challenges (related to severe dyslexia, for

example, or autism or severe physical challenges) can

develop the full range of knowledge and skills associated

with deeper learning. Finally, we hope also that readers will

have increased confidence that all students stand to benefit

from instructional practices known to be effective for

students with disabilities.

DEEPER LEARNING RESEARCH SERIES | DEEPER LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES2

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND OUTCOMES

Enacted in 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act—later known

as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—was meant to ensure that all children with

disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education and that their rights, and those

of their parents, are adequately protected. Before the Act was passed, most public schools provided

few if any services for students with disabilities, and many of these students dropped out of school

as soon as they were legally permitted to do so.

P.L. 94-142’s most important provisions are still in effect

today. These include the requirements that students with

disabilities be educated to the maximum extent possible

with their non-disabled peers (often referred to as least

restrictive environment) and that they be given an

individualized educational program (IEP). Also required are

due process provisions designed to ensure that students

and their parents are kept fully informed about their IEP

status and services and are given ample opportunities to

participate in and/or challenge relevant decisions by their

schools.

In theory, these due process provisions add up to a

guarantee that all students identified with disabilities are

eligible for an IEP and will receive appropriate supports.

Schools are required to assess each child’s specific needs

and spell out their individual learning goals in writing

in order to provide clear guidance to their parents and

teachers as to appropriate instruction and classroom

accommodations (e.g., giving students more time to take

a test, permitting them to use a computer to take notes in

class, and so on).

In reality, though, the results have been mixed. Around

1990, findings began to emerge from a Congressionally

mandated study (the National Longitudinal Transition

Study) that focused on the high school and post-school

experiences of youth with disabilities. The data revealed a

pattern of high dropout and course-failure rates and low

rates of post-school employment and college enrollment

(Wagner et al. 2005). In turn, many policymakers,

researchers, and other stakeholders began to wonder

whether the law might have erred by placing too much

emphasis on monitoring schools’ procedural compliance

(e.g., documenting that students and parents were able to

participate in the IEP conference) and doing too little to

ensure that students were actually learning, passing their

classes, and reaching other desired goals.

However, while the transition study was illuminating, there

existed no reliable, ongoing sources of data as of the early

1990s that would enable states or the U.S. Department

of Education to know precisely how well students with

disabilities were doing in any given school or district, or

whether their results were improving over time.

That changed dramatically over the subsequent years. First,

in the mid-1990s the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) began to require that students with

disabilities be included in its regular assessments. Second,

the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA specified that students

with disabilities must be included in state assessments

and that the data must be reported publicly. And finally,

the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required that

states, districts, and schools be held accountable for the

performance of students with disabilities.

All together, these policy initiatives provided a forceful

response to the earlier concern that IDEA had been too

narrowly focused on procedural compliance. From this

point on, the monitoring of schools’ adherence to the law

was to be combined with efforts to use both NAEP and

state assessment data to monitor the actual performance

of students with disabilities and to push schools to get

better results. Among many in the field, these steps led

to optimism that students with disabilities would begin to

make real progress in their academic performance, both in

K-12 education and beyond.


AC

CE

SS

, EQ

UIT

Y, AN

D O

UT

CO

ME

S

For all of the recent efforts to improve services for students with disabilities, perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle—educators’ capacity to provide those services—has not been adequately addressed.

The Current Status of Students with Disabilities

According to the most recent NAEP (NCES 2013), 38-45

percent of students without disabilities performed at the

proficient level or above in reading and mathematics in

fourth and eighth grade, while a mere 8-17 percent of

students with disabilities did so (excluding those students

whose IEPs indicated that they would be unable to access

the NAEP materials and participate in the assessment). In

short, despite the policy reforms of the past two decades,

and despite an improved knowledge base in the field of

special education, achievement results for students with

disabilities have remained virtually unchanged (Vaughn &

Wanzek 2014).

Due to continuing concerns about poor outcomes for

these students, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office

of Special Education Programs recently announced

a new approach to state monitoring—Results Driven

Accountability—requiring states to submit Systemic

Improvement Plans (beginning in 2015) that detail precise

steps they will take to improve the results of students with

disabilities.

This could open the door for educators to implement proven

practices for providing deeper learning opportunities for

these students. As with NCLB, however, the challenge will

be for states to show that they have the will, resources, and

especially the capacity to do so.

On that score, many advocates have pointed out that for

all of the recent efforts to improve services for students

with disabilities, perhaps the most important piece of the

puzzle—educators’ capacity to provide those services—has

not been adequately addressed. Not only must schools

comply with IDEA, they argue, and not only must states

monitor student progress and create incentives for

schools to provide better services, but serious investments

must also be devoted to professional development and

organizational change. Unless teachers actually know how

to provide effective instruction to students with disabilities,

and unless schools create the conditions under which such

instruction can take place, it is unlikely that compliance,

monitoring, or incentivizing will impact student outcomes.

Toward Better Outcomes: Problems and Priorities

What are some of the challenges that will have to be

overcome in order to ensure that students with disabilities

have real opportunities to learn deeply?

For one thing, some educators and policymakers might not

accept the premise that deeper learning goals are feasible

for all students. Indeed, they might point to the fact that

NAEP scores have remained low, even after two decades of

legislation and reform, as evidence that large numbers of

students with disabilities are simply not capable of meeting

core academic standards.

We would argue, however, that a lack of improvement on

NAEP scores does not provide a compelling reason to

doubt these students’ innate potential. If anything, those

scores should be taken as an indication that many, if not

most, students with disabilities continue to be held to low

expectations and denied access to high-quality instruction

and interventions. As recent findings suggest, when they

are taught using well-established, effective instructional

practices, students with disabilities do tend to make

significant gains in their academic performance, particularly

with respect to problem solving and knowledge application

in content areas (i.e., key aspects of deeper learning) (Fuchs

et al. 2015; Swanson et al. 2015).


Another challenge is that most schools are not, and never

have been, organized to deliver the intensity of services

that many of these students require. But here, too, lessons

can be learned from schools that do achieve good results

for students with disabilities. Perhaps most important,

they tend to be relatively flexible in their daily schedules,

allowing teachers to devote extra time to students when it

seems important to do so. Further, such schools also tend

to implement multi-tiered systems of support, meaning

that they carefully monitor student performance in order

to identify those who are struggling and might need more

intensive intervention and instruction (NCII 2013a).

A third challenge is that few educators receive the kinds of

preparation, professional learning, and support needed to

promote effective instruction to students with disabilities,

much less to help them learn deeply. For example,

observational studies in elementary and secondary settings

reveal that students with disabilities are frequently taught

using methods that have no basis in research, are often

excluded from participating in classroom learning activities

(McIntosh et al. 1994), and are often given assignments that

are so far beyond their reach that they become discouraged

(Jones & Brownell 2014). By contrast, effective special

educators provide instruction that is explicit, systematic,

and often features considerable scaffolding and modeling

from the teacher, designed to ensure that students gain

a strong foundation in the given content and skills before

they are expected to proceed on their own, without

scaffolding.

A complicating factor is that while such explicit instruction

is well-supported by empirical evidence, existing teacher

evaluation systems may not value it, resulting in poor

performance reviews for teachers who are actually quite

skilled. Imagine, for example, that a teacher modifies a

class writing assignment for a few students who struggle

to process and organize written text—say, by requiring them

to use a specific paragraph structure. This could be a wise

and effective instructional strategy. However, a classroom

observer might conclude that the teacher has singled out

those students unfairly and denied them the chance to

express themselves freely.

Teacher evaluation practices are very much in flux, at

present, but whatever direction they take, it should be a

priority for school leaders to ensure that those charged

with observing and rating teachers are able to recognize

when instruction has been tailored, appropriately, to meet

the needs that many students with disabilities have for

relatively explicit guidance.

Another challenge is that current accountability

requirements can easily run counter to best practices in

special education. One of NCLB’s goals was to increase the

percentage of the students in each subgroup (including

students with disabilities) who score at the proficient level

or better on state assessments. Yet many students with

disabilities attend schools where this subgroup is too small

to count toward Adequate Yearly Progress. Among the rest,

many tend to score far below proficient on standardized

tests, such that school leaders see it as futile to try to raise

their scores to that threshold (Harr-Robins et al. 2012).

Finally, an additional problem with existing state tests is

that they are designed to show only whether students

are functioning at or close to grade level, which means

that they include few items meant to assess lower-level

knowledge and skills. For many students with disabilities,

then, the tests show only what they cannot do. As to

precisely what they do know, or exactly which content

gives them trouble, state assessments provide very little

information, leaving educators unsure how to adjust their

instruction (Conley 2014).

Effective special educators provide instruction that is explicit, systematic, and often features considerable scaffolding and modeling from the teacher.


AC

CE

SS

, EQ

UIT

Y, AN

D O

UT

CO

ME

S

We believe that many of the challenges described in

this section—lingering prejudices against students with

disabilities, insufficient organizational flexibility, lack of

attention to special needs when preparing and evaluating

teachers, and poorly designed student assessment

systems—can be resolved with research-based instruction.

Quite a lot has been learned in recent years about effective

teaching for students with disabilities, and, perhaps just

as important, the evidence strongly suggests that when

teachers implement these practices, all students benefit,

typical learners included.

Quite a lot has been learned in recent years about effective teaching for students with disabilities, and, perhaps just as important, the evidence strongly suggests that when teachers implement these practices, all students benefit, typical learners included.


EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

To teachers, parents, or anybody else who interacts regularly with individuals identified as “students

with disabilities,” it is hard to ignore just how varied these students are in their skills, talents,

interests, likes, dislikes, and on and on. The diversity that characterizes this population is truly

extraordinary. How, then, can teachers provide instruction that meets everyone’s learning needs?

A suggestion often given to both general and special

educators is to differentiate instruction for each learner.

However, while that is an appealing slogan, trying to

implement it in practice—actually providing differentiated

support to dozens of students at a time—would be enough

to physically and psychologically exhaust even the most

capable and motivated of teachers. Further, some students

enrolled in general education classes exhibit learning

challenges that are serious and persistent enough that they

require additional time and attention, which they cannot

receive if their teachers are stretched too thin already.

We argue, instead, for an approach that may be both more

realistic and more effective: The professional repertoire of

every classroom teacher can and should include a number

of specific instructional approaches—designed for students

with disabilities but often effective for students of all kinds—

that will allow them to respond to most learning needs,

while leaving them time to provide more intensive support

as appropriate. (We outline these approaches below, and

they are described at length in guides and resources offered

by the National Center on Intensive Intervention; see

Vaughn et al. 2009, and www.intensiveintervention.org)

Teaching Core Concepts in the Content Areas

Deeper learning was described by the National Research

Council panel as “the process through which an individual

becomes capable of taking what was learned in one

situation and applying it to new situations (i.e., transfer)”

(NRC 2012, p. 4).

In part, this suggests just how critical foundation skills in

reading, writing, and mathematics are, since they transfer

to every other part of the curriculum, allowing students

to gain access to the more advanced content to be found

in various academic domains. Thus for many students

with disabilities, who may struggle with basic reading

comprehension and arithmetic even into the secondary

grades, the call for deeper learning implies a redoubling of

efforts to teach those skills.

By no means, however, does this mean that students

with disabilities should be limited to the study of

foundation skills alone (Gersten et al. 2009). Like all other

students, they should have every opportunity to engage

cooperatively with others, to learn to persist at challenging

The diversity that characterizes this population is truly extraordinary. How, then, can teachers provide instruction that meets everyone’s learning needs?

http://www.intensiveintervention.org


EF

FE

CT

IVE

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N F

OR

ST

UD

EN

TS

WIT

H D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

S

tasks, to communicate effectively in many contexts, and

to experience other aspects of deeper learning, including

the study of advanced content and skills in the academic

subject areas.

What must content-area teachers understand in order to

ensure access to these kinds of deeper learning for all

students? Most important, students with disabilities may

need more time to learn and practice new skills, they may

need to be given somewhat different tasks and assignments

(e.g., the option to provide oral rather than written

summaries, or to answer fewer problems on quizzes and

tests), and they may need particular kinds of instruction.

For example, Vaughn and colleagues have developed a set

of instructional practices that are specifically designed

to help students with disabilities learn academic content

in social studies and other secondary level subject areas

(Vaughn et al. 2013; Vaughn et al. 2014). These include (a)

guiding students in creating a comprehension canopy

(identifying the field’s big ideas and key concepts and,

over time, explicitly connecting them to specific examples

and cases), (b) defining essential words, meant to assist

students in learning and using the academic vocabulary

of the discipline, and (c) team-based learning, in which

students work independently at first, to demonstrate

comprehension, and then with team members to build,

correct, and extend learning about content-area issues

(Wanzek et al. 2014).

What does this look like in a classroom that enrolls a

mix of “typical” students and students with disabilities?

When introducing a unit, say on the Revolutionary War,

the teacher will begin by posing a concrete but high-level

question meant to frame classroom discussions (creating a

comprehension canopy). For example:

The colonists almost lost the war. General George

Washington put it best when he said that American

victory was “little short of a miracle.” The British had

the most powerful army in the world; it was made of

professional soldiers who were disciplined and well

trained. The Colonial Army was mostly made up of

farmers and part-time soldiers. They were poorly paid,

and few had formal training. How, then, did the colonists

win the Revolutionary War?

Over the course of the unit, the teacher will return to this

overarching question many times, asking students to refine

and elaborate on it in increasingly sophisticated ways, both

on their own and through group discussions and projects.

Further, the teacher will make it a priority to identify and

define key words that are critical to understanding the

given content and which will likely appear in future readings

and discussions.

Such practices may not seem so remarkable—content-area

teachers often ask framing questions, highlight new words,

and assign group work. However, research evidence strongly

suggests that for many students with disabilities, it is

critically important that the teacher provides such supports

deliberately, explicitly, and systematically. According to

randomized control group studies—so-called gold-standard

research—when teachers make conscientious efforts to

apply these practices, students with disabilities (and many

without disabilities) see significant improvements in their

content knowledge and academic vocabulary, outpacing the

gains made by students in matched classes studying the

same content (Swanson et al. 2015).

In short, subject-area instruction can be organized in ways

that allow students to access meaningful content, grasp key

concepts and vocabulary, and participate fully in high-level

discussions and projects, even though they may struggle to

Students with disabilities may need more time to learn and practice new skills, they may need to be given somewhat different tasks and assignments (e.g., the option to provide oral rather than written summaries, or to answer fewer problems on quizzes and tests), and they may need particular kinds of instruction.


read and comprehend the given material on their own. And

while such scaffolding is especially helpful to students with

disabilities, it tends to benefit all learners.

Further, it requires no extraordinary effort or extensive

professional development for general education teachers to

provide such support. Rather, as described below, the chief

requirement is that they become aware of and are willing to

make some accommodations for students who need more

time, practice, and explicit guidance as they process new

content and ideas.

Supporting Cognitive Processing

Recent research1 into cognitive processing has done

much to tease out precisely what is meant by the goal of

“learning how to learn,” which has been described as a key

part of deeper learning. Specifically, studies have zeroed in

on the roles that executive functioning and self-regulation—

both of which can be successfully promoted by instruction—

play in learning.

Many students with (and some without) disabilities struggle

with one or more aspects of cognitive processing, including

challenges with memory, attention, and the generation,

selection, monitoring, and implementation of learning

strategies. These executive functioning and self-regulatory

mechanisms are, in effect, the “control processes” that

manage goal direction for learning, and they overlap with

other cognitive and behavioral processes, such as short-

term memory, processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning.

For example, many students with short-term memory

difficulties struggle with reading comprehension,

particularly when asked by teachers to read and respond

to texts immediately (Cain & Oakhill 2006; Cain et al. 2004;

Pike et al. 2010). If it is hard to recall critical information

from the sentences one has just read, as is often the case

for such students, then it is doubly difficult to describe the

main idea of the given paragraph, or multiple paragraphs

(Swanson & O’Connor 2009; Swanson et al. 2009).

As recently as forty years ago, the prevailing view in the

field was that such students had neurological damage that

required treatment before they could begin to access and

comprehend academic texts (Mann 1979). Thus, problems

related to visual, auditory, and motor processing were

assessed and treated in isolation, without being integrated

with other learning goals.

However, this approach had limited value for students

(Mann 1979), and newer evidence—drawing from far

stronger theoretical frameworks and a robust empirical

base (e.g., Pintrich 1995; Zimmerman 1989)—suggests that

it is a mistake to provide isolated treatments for processing

disorders (e.g., training children in auditory processing

alone, divorced from any particular academic context; Lyon

1985; Mann 1979). Rather, current research on executive

functions and self-regulation supports the use of systematic

and explicit instructional routines that are integrated with

the teaching of specific academic content and skills.

Consider, for example, language-processing difficulties

that interfere with students’ efforts to solve mathematical

word problems. Rather than trying to teach those students

how to process language more efficiently in general, it is

far more effective to teach them concrete strategies that

help them solve specific math problems—such as showing

them that certain everyday words can be expressed in

mathematical terms, or showing them how they can restate

an algebraic problem in their own words, or showing them

how they can break a problem down into a functional

It requires no extraordinary effort or extensive professional development for general education teachers to provide deliberate, explicit, and systematic support.

1 A growing research base associates executive functions with learning in reading (Booth, Boyle, & Kelly 2010; Cutting et al. 2009; Locascio et al. 2010; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami 2006; Swanson & Howell 2001; Was & Woltz 2007), mathematics (Bull et al. 2008; Bull & Scerif 2001; Cirino 2011; Cirino et al. 2007; Cirino et al. 2002; Fuchs et al. 2010; Geary 2004; van der Sluis et al. 2007), and writing (Altemeier et al. 2008; Hooper et al. 2006; Hooper et al. 2002; Santangelo et al. 2007). Research also suggests that executive functions influence general academic outcomes (Barnett et al. 2008; Blair 2002; Blair & Razza 2007; Diamond et al. 2007).


EF

FE

CT

IVE

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N F

OR

ST

UD

EN

TS

WIT

H D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

S

sequence of steps (Fuchs et al. 2009)—and which they can

then apply to new math problems.

Another practice that has been shown to be particularly

effective for students with cognitive processing difficulties

is to teach them to define specific learning goals and

monitor their own progress over time, such as by keeping

track of the number of word problems they are able to

answer correctly or the number of math assignments they

have completed.

Similarly, researchers have found that students can be

taught to monitor their own comprehension while reading

academic texts, becoming aware of any “breakdowns” in

their understanding as soon as they occur. For example,

teachers can instruct them to use “self talk” as they make

their way through a history text or literary narrative (e.g.,

asking themselves, “What’s happening here, in this chapter?

How does this relate to what I know? What’s confusing to

me?”) Often, it is helpful for teachers to model this strategy

for students, giving them an out-loud demonstration of

how they would talk themselves through the given text

(see Figure 1). Likewise, teachers can assign students to

underline important passages or to use tools such as

mnemonic devices or graphic organizers, which have been

found to be effective in helping students with disabilities to

remember and understand what they are learning (Boyle

2010; Kim et al. 2004).

Overall, students who struggle with cognitive processing

tend to trail behind their peers in measures of academic

learning and motivation (Dembo & Eaton 2000; Krouse

& Krouse 1981). When taught to use such self-regulatory

practices, however, they often see significant improvements

in school performance and self-efficacy (Zimmerman 1989;

Zimmerman & Bandura 1994; Zimmerman et al. 1996;

Zimmerman & Risemberg 1997).

Finally, researchers have found that students’ capacity to

self-regulate is also closely linked to their beliefs about

Students who struggle with cognitive processing often attribute their lack of academic success to stable, internal causes that they cannot change, while they attribute success to unpredictable factors, such as luck.

Figure 1. Thinking Out Loud: Modeling “Self-Talk”

For students who struggle to process and comprehend complex texts, it is often helpful to practice “self talk” while reading—pausing to ask themselves questions meant to check their own understanding and to remind themselves to use specific comprehension strategies.

A simple but highly effective instructional practice (one that all teachers should have in their repertoires) is to model this sort of self-talk out loud, showing students exactly how they can use it to improve their comprehension. For example, while looking over a text with a student, the teacher might say things like:

With a difficult book like this, the first thing I do is to look for key words that the author uses. There are several here that confuse me—like “colonial” and “regiment”—so I am going to read the text around them to see if that gives me any clues as to what those words mean. And if that doesn’t work, then I’ll check the dictionary.

Now that I know what these key words mean, I’m looking at the title, headings, and questions provided in the text to see if they tell me what this chapter is going to be about, and whether it relates to things I already know.

After finishing this paragraph, I’m going to pause and make sure I understand everything. And if something seems confusing, then I’m going to go back and read it again, and then I’ll try to restate it using my own words.

And now that I’ve read this page, I’ll stop and look over our questions for class discussion, to see if this part of the text can help me answer them.

In short, the teacher demonstrates a number of very specific things students can do to monitor and improve their comprehension while reading. Not every reader needs this kind of support—many students pick up these sorts of strategies on their own, without being coached. But for those who struggle to organize and process information, such explicit modeling can be extremely helpful.


the causes of their academic failures and successes

(“attribution” is the term most often used in the field

of special education, though it has been described as

“academic mindset” in discussions of deeper learning).

Students who struggle with cognitive processing often

attribute their lack of academic success to stable, internal

causes that they cannot change, while they attribute

success to unpredictable factors, such as luck. However,

when provided with instruction designed to improve

their self-regulation (e.g., when taught to use self-talk

while reading academic texts, or to paraphrase complex

ideas, or to use rereading as a way to “repair” their

own misunderstandings), these students often come

to recognize that their concrete actions can, in fact,

have positive effects on their learning and performance

(Berkeley et al. 2011; Borkowski et al. 1988; Carr & Borkowski

1989; Chan 1996; Miranda et al. 1997).

intensifying instruction

Regular classroom teachers, in addition to using

instructional practices that support cognitive processing

and helping students with disabilities access core academic

content, should be prepared to provide more intensive

support to students who need it.

This is not to suggest that all teachers should become

experts in special education, or that they should devote a

large portion of their time to helping just a small number of

their students. But it is to argue that for some students, the

strategies described above may not be enough, and they

will require additional kinds of support.

EXPLiCiT, SYSTEMATiC, AND RESPONSiVE

iNSTRUCTiON

As described above, in the section on content-area

instruction, a relatively low-cost way to intensify instruction

is for educators to adopt a strongly teacher-centered

approach at times, combining direct instruction with efforts

to coach students in the use of research-based learning

strategies. For many students with learning disabilities,

significant gains have been associated with teaching that

is explicit, systematic, and gives them ample opportunities

to practice and receive targeted feedback on their skills

(Swanson et al. 1999).

Explicit instruction refers to the overt teaching of the

steps or processes necessary to accomplish a task or

learn a given skill (Fuchs et al. 2003), and it often involves

teacher modeling and demonstrations that illustrate

precisely what students are expected to do. While this sort

of highly directive approach may not be effective, or even

appropriate, for all learners, research strongly suggests

that for many students who struggle to plan, organize,

and monitor their own learning, it often leads to improved

mastery of both foundation skills and higher-level concepts

(Baker et al. 2002; Biancarosa & Snow 2004; Gersten et al.

2009; Swanson 2000; Vaughn et al. 2000).

Systematic instruction refers to how effective teachers

organize instruction into manageable pieces of learning

and how they integrate these pieces into an overall

learning goal. (For example, a teacher might break down a

complex math problem into a number of smaller steps or

processes and then bring them back together to solve the

whole.) Further, it refers to teachers’ efforts to introduce

progressively more challenging tasks over time, to give

students the scaffolding they need to complete those tasks

successfully, and then to pull away that support gradually,

as students become more accomplished and independent.

Also, in addition to providing explicit and systematic

instruction, teachers can intensify the support they provide

by giving students frequent opportunities to practice new

skills and receive feedback on what they can do to improve.

(For example, this could mean asking some students to

Students who struggle with cognitive processing often attribute their lack of academic success to stable, internal causes that they cannot change, while they attribute success to unpredictable factors, such as luck.


EF

FE

CT

IVE

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N F

OR

ST

UD

EN

TS

WIT

H D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

S

get started on a class project early and to schedule a few

brief check-ins in advance of the official due date to go

over their work and suggest revisions.) According to an

exhaustive review and synthesis of research in this area,

teachers’ feedback tends to have a significant influence

on student outcomes, particularly when it is timely, relates

clearly to students’ goals, provides specific information

as to how they can complete tasks more effectively, and

allows teachers to monitor their progress closely (Hattie &

Timperley 2007; Vaughn et al. 2000).

Finally, teachers should keep in mind that these students

may already be discouraged—given that they were not

helped by earlier, less-intensive kinds of support—and a

fresh dose of discouragement could make it even harder for

them to benefit from a new approach. Thus, teachers should

consider modifying their classroom tasks and assignments

in ways that will allow these students to experience some

success. For example, they can make it a priority to give

extremely clear instructions for each assignment, provide

examples of the kind of work that will count as high quality,

and provide graphics or other concrete illustrations of the

concept to be learned.

TiME AND CLASS SiZE

The teaching practices described above do not necessarily

require major new outlays of time or money. However, it

would be misleading to suggest that there are no costs

associated with providing more intensive supports to

students with disabilities. Time, in particular, tends to be

a precious commodity in schools, and choosing to spend

more of it with particular students often means spending

less on others.

Whatever local educators decide, they should keep in mind

that scheduling decisions tend to be particularly important

to students with disabilities. Increasing instructional

time has been shown to be one of the most effective

ways to help such students learn advanced content and

skills (Torgesen 2000), giving them a chance to master

cognitively complex tasks—such as reading high-level

material and connecting ideas across texts—that they simply

could not process over the course of a 45-minute lesson.

Intensifying instruction in this way could mean providing

a given intervention every day, or even twice a day, say,

morning and afternoon, rather than three times a week,

for example (Wanzek & Vaughn 2008). Or, depending on

students’ capacities for attention, it could mean providing

them instruction in longer stretches, or increasing the

duration of the intervention (e.g., from fifteen weeks to

thirty weeks). To be sure, that extra time does have to

come from somewhere—never an easy decision—but for this

student population, it does tend to be time well spent.

More expensive but equally important to consider is the

option of reducing teacher-student ratios. Small group

size can be a powerful factor in improving outcomes for

students with disabilities (Elbaum et al. 1999), since it gives

teachers far more leeway to provide the kinds of responsive

instruction—including frequent opportunities for practice

and feedback—that research shows to be effective for

students who require intensive support.

For many students with learning disabilities, significant gains have been associated with teaching that is explicit, systematic, and gives them ample opportunities to practice and receive targeted feedback on their skills.

Increasing instructional time has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to help such students learn advanced content and skills


Over forty years of research suggests that if students have several and persistent learning needs, and if they show little or no improvement despite teachers’ efforts to intensify instruction, they can probably benefit from what is referred to as clinical or experimental teaching, or “data-based individualization.”

Differentiating When Appropriate: Data-Based individualization

As we noted above, it would be impractical for general

education teachers to provide truly differentiated

instruction to every student. However, at some times, and

for some students with disabilities, such instruction is

absolutely critical.

Over forty years of research suggests that if students have

several and persistent learning needs, and if they show little

or no improvement despite teachers’ efforts to intensify

instruction, they can probably benefit from what is referred

to as clinical or experimental teaching, or “data-based

individualization” (DBI), a term that highlights the role that

systematic assessment plays in the process (NCII, 2013b;

Deno & Mirkin, 1977; Fuchs et al., 1984).

DBI is typically implemented within a multi-tiered system

of support (such as Response to Intervention), which is

to say that schools tend to offer it only after they have

tried to help the given student in other ways. If regular

core instruction (known as Tier 1) was not successful,

and if the student did not benefit from a secondary (Tier

2) intervention—assuming it was a proven approach,

implemented with fidelity—then the DBI process kicks in.

First, the teacher tries increasing the intensity of the

instruction (e.g., spending more time with the student).

Next, the teacher monitors the student’s progress to

determine whether intensifying the instruction had an

impact. Third, the school uses diagnostic assessments to

identify the student’s specific skill deficits and develop

a hypothesis about effective ways to modify instruction.

Fourth, the teacher implements an adapted program (which

may include some of the teaching strategies described in

the preceding sections). And finally, the teacher continues

to monitor and collect data on the student’s progress, to

see whether the approach is working or should be modified

further.

This careful integration of assessment and intervention

can meet the needs of individual students that have not

been helped by the kinds of supports described earlier.

But how expensive is it to provide such services? Typically,

schools train and rely upon their regular classroom

teachers to provide effective Tier 2 interventions, monitor

student progress, and, when students continue to struggle,

perform diagnostic assessments to pinpoint their needs.

In turn, when the DBI process reveals a need for more

intensive interventions, students usually are referred to

special education teachers, reading specialists, and other

specialized staff and/or instructional aids. In short, DBI can

be quite labor intensive, and most schools would be hard-

pressed to offer it to more than a very small percentage

of their students at a time. As is true of other means of

intensifying instruction, however, research suggests that

when implemented well, it is associated with improved

outcomes for students.

Assistive Technologies for Students with

Disabilities

The scope of this paper does not include discussion of new technology-based approaches to special education. It is important to acknowledge, though, that such technologies—from cochlear implants to text-to-speech software to large-print word processors—have been enormously beneficial already, and there is great optimism in the field about the development of new resources for students with disabilities.

For background on the research in this area, emerging tools, and principles of effective technology-based instruction, a great place to begin is: www.cast.org.

And for a related discussion of how practices developed for students with disabilities in fact benefit all learners and can be enhanced by technology, please see Students at the Center’s 2102 report: Curricular Opportunities in the Digital Age.

http://www.cast.org

http://www.studentsatthecenter.org/topics/curricular-opportunities-digital-age

http://www.studentsatthecenter.org/topics/curricular-opportunities-digital-age


CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTEGRATING DEEPER LEARNING

The practices described above have been shown to promote effective instruction for students with

significant learning problems and disabilities in general education classrooms. When practiced

thoughtfully and consistently, they can help these students to gain access to deeper learning.

They can also be expensive—such as when schools choose to reduce class sizes or offer additional,

specialized services—but in many cases they are not, requiring only that classroom teachers learn

how and when to implement a number of specific, proven instructional practices.

With these considerations in mind, we offer a number of

overarching recommendations for local educators and

policymakers at the local and state levels:

> Make it known to educational leaders, teachers, parents,

and other community members that empirical research

strongly suggests that students with disabilities and

other struggling learners can—when given appropriate

instructional strategies and tiered levels of instructional

and behavioral support—succeed in learning deeply and

meeting rigorous achievement standards.

> Make sure that all students—including those with

disabilities—have access to high-quality instruction in the

core content areas.

> Make sure that general education teachers’ professional

standards, licensure requirements, and job descriptions

assign them clear responsibility to provide effective

instruction to students with disabilities.

> Ensure that teachers’ pre- and in-service programs

equip them to provide the kinds of intensive, evidence-

based interventions that can help students with

disabilities to access deeper learning.

> Ensure that state policies require schools to provide

tiered levels of instructional and behavioral supports.

> Ensure that state policies create incentives for all

teachers to share responsibility for providing effective

instruction and supports to students with disabilities.

> Ensure that state and local educator evaluation systems

reward—or at least do not penalize—teachers who use

appropriate, evidence-based instructional strategies

when working with students who have disabilities.

> Ensure that states implement college and career

readiness assessments that address the full range

of deeper learning competencies and include

accommodations that enable students with disabilities

to show what they know and can do.

We are confident that if states and districts integrate these

recommendations with the practices described above, all

students will benefit as a result. Deeper learning can and

should be the goal for every young person.

“This document was developed and edited from the open access article: The Implications of Deeper Learning

for Adolescent Immigrants and English Language Learners - Gandara, Patricia., Students at the Center: Deeper

Learning Research Series, Jobs for the Future (2015), used under the Creative Commons Attribution License.”

“This document was developed and edited from the open access article: Deeper Learning for Students with

Disabilities - Vaughn, Sharon, Louis Danielson, Rebecca Zumeta, & Lynn Holdheide, Students at the Center: Deeper

Learning Research Series, Jobs for the Future (2015), used under the Creative Commons Attribution License.”

Documents

Deeper Learning for English Language Learners and Students ... Learning for English...learning,” “critical thinking,” “conceptual understanding,” and “learning how to learn.”